One of the many concerns about bringing refugees from Syria into Montana is the cost. As America looks at growing deficits, and a national debt around $18,000,000,000,000, and growing, we have to ask ourselves, can we justify this added expense?
First N.G.O.s, or nowadays “Volags” (volunteer agencies), actually get paid to import refugees. The International Rescue Committee, for one, receives tens of millions of dollars per year from the federal government. Additional funding derives from such foundations as The Ford Foundation, The Clinton Foundation, and George Soro’s Open Borders Foundation. It adds up to about 60 percent of tax dollars, and 40 percent of foundation money. Multiply this by the number of organizations, and it is a big-money operation.
The Center for Immigration Studies puts the cost of relocating one refugee into the U.S. at $12,800 per year. Many of them are low skilled, don’t speak English, and have a hard time assimilating. So there is training in new skills, English classes, Medicare, or refugee medical assistance.
In most cases, these refugees historically remain on public assistance for decades, adding to an already bloated welfare state. It is not fair to the average U.S. citizen who has not seen wages rise for some time, yet watches costs rise for housing, medical costs, and food.
Interestingly, the cost of asylum in a nearby Middle Eastern country, where the culture is similar, people speak their language, and where it would be much cheaper to repatriate them after the war has ended is about $1,200 per year. One of the best reasons to leave them in the Middle East is because we can help so many more people for the same money.
For these and many other reasons, Americans across the country poll above 60 percent in opposing bringing in Middle Eastern refugees. When a majority of the electorate in a Democratic republic desire a policy for national security, it is the job of its representatives to implement that policy.
Doug Miller
Kalispell